The pedaling technique thread

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Re: Re:

Increasing the available time in "power phase" is not addressing a performance limiter. Our limiters are aerobic metabolic in nature, not mechanical, nor of force production. We can only produce so much ATP. Why is this fundamental not understood?

Force production may not be a limiter but torque return from this force can be a limiter.

To increase torque from the same force I see three options:
1. increase the lever size (crank length)
2. change gears
3. violate the conservation of energy law

1. will have implications for biomechanics.
2. will have implications for cadence (power stays the same)
3. will have implications for physics (everything is out the window)


edit: fixed quotes

Indeed.

1. plus pedal force and pedal velocity are not independent variables but are inter related - we can't simply choose to adjust one at will without affecting the other. IOW we are power limited.

 

[backdoor]

Re: Re:

Increasing the available time in "power phase" is not addressing a performance limiter. Our limiters are aerobic metabolic in nature, not mechanical, nor of force production. We can only produce so much ATP. Why is this fundamental not understood?

Force production may not be a limiter but torque return from this force can be a limiter.

To increase torque from the same force I see three options:
1. increase the lever size (crank length)
2. change gears
3. violate the conservation of energy law

1. will have implications for biomechanics.
2. will have implications for cadence (power stays the same)
3. will have implications for physics (everything is out the window)


edit: fixed quotes

There is only one way to increase torque from the force you are applying in the most powerful 90 deg. sector of your pedalling and that is to change the direction in which this force is being directed at the crank. With natural pedalling this cannot be done. This means its torque return is limited.

 

[backdoor]

Re: Re:

Increasing the available time in "power phase" is not addressing a performance limiter. Our limiters are aerobic metabolic in nature, not mechanical, nor of force production. We can only produce so much ATP. Why is this fundamental not understood?

Force production may not be a limiter but torque return from this force can be a limiter.

To increase torque from the same force I see three options:
1. increase the lever size (crank length)
2. change gears
3. violate the conservation of energy law

1. will have implications for biomechanics.
2. will have implications for cadence (power stays the same)
3. will have implications for physics (everything is out the window)


edit: fixed quotes

There is only one way to increase torque from the force you are applying in the most powerful 90 deg. sector of your pedalling and that is to change the direction in which this force is being directed at the crank. With natural pedalling this cannot be done. This means its torque return is limited.

I mean with the same crank length.

 

[JayKosta]

I think we're again in a 'terminology bind' - my understanding from BACKDOOR's posts is that he is talking mainly about the POWER being created. I'm sure we all agree that power results from the timely accomplishment of work, which is created by the torque and rotation of the cranks.

Effective application of muscle effort against the pedal is important for getting the most torque from that effort.
And the manner (technique) that the muscle effort is done needs to avoid increased metabolic cost and muscle fatigue.

And of course, all that needs to be done in a real-world cycling environment.

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

 

[backdoor]

Re:

I think we're again in a 'terminology bind' - my understanding from BACKDOOR's posts is that he is talking mainly about the POWER being created. I'm sure we all agree that power results from the timely accomplishment of work, which is created by the torque and rotation of the cranks.

Effective application of muscle effort against the pedal is important for getting the most torque from that effort.
And the manner (technique) that the muscle effort is done needs to avoid increased metabolic cost and muscle fatigue.

And of course, all that needs to be done in a real-world cycling environment.

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

What I have been trying to explain is, natural pedalling (mashing style) can deliver most torque from its maximal force between 2 and 4 o'c. What all cyclists do not know is that another combination of muscles exist that can deliver greater torque return from an even more powerful force between 12 and 2 o'c. By merging these two maximal forces you get the ideal flat TT pedalling technique. By distributing the workload over two almost equally powerful combinations of muscles, muscle fatigue can be eliminated.

 

[berend]

Re: Re:

I think we're again in a 'terminology bind' - my understanding from BACKDOOR's posts is that he is talking mainly about the POWER being created. I'm sure we all agree that power results from the timely accomplishment of work, which is created by the torque and rotation of the cranks.

Effective application of muscle effort against the pedal is important for getting the most torque from that effort.
And the manner (technique) that the muscle effort is done needs to avoid increased metabolic cost and muscle fatigue.

And of course, all that needs to be done in a real-world cycling environment.

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

What I have been trying to explain is, natural pedalling (mashing style) can deliver most torque from its maximal force between 2 and 4 o'c. What all cyclists do not know is that another combination of muscles exist that can deliver greater torque return from an even more powerful force between 12 and 2 o'c. By merging these two maximal forces you get the ideal flat TT pedalling technique. By distributing the workload over two almost equally powerful combinations of muscles, muscle fatigue can be eliminated.

Using what energy system? Without fatigue, I'd be pushing > 1,000 watts continuously for hours.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Re: Re:

I think we're again in a 'terminology bind' - my understanding from BACKDOOR's posts is that he is talking mainly about the POWER being created. I'm sure we all agree that power results from the timely accomplishment of work, which is created by the torque and rotation of the cranks.

Effective application of muscle effort against the pedal is important for getting the most torque from that effort.
And the manner (technique) that the muscle effort is done needs to avoid increased metabolic cost and muscle fatigue.

And of course, all that needs to be done in a real-world cycling environment.

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

What I have been trying to explain is, natural pedalling (mashing style) can deliver most torque from its maximal force between 2 and 4 o'c. What all cyclists do not know is that another combination of muscles exist that can deliver greater torque return from an even more powerful force between 12 and 2 o'c. By merging these two maximal forces you get the ideal flat TT pedalling technique. By distributing the workload over two almost equally powerful combinations of muscles, muscle fatigue can be eliminated.

You've been saying the same thing for decades but have consistently failed to demonstrate this potential benefit with at least any anecdotal evidence, which e.g. would be as trivial measuring power output of riders before/after a pedalling technique intervention. This method of demonstrating performance improvement is ridiculously easy to do, yet you continue to obfuscate and fail to do so.

 

[CoachFergie]

Different day same drivel. If your method worked it would mean anyone you taught to do would be able to perform more work for a set distance or duration. Very easy to measure with any power meter!

 

[backdoor]

Re:

Different day same drivel. If your method worked it would mean anyone you taught to do would be able to perform more work for a set distance or duration. Very easy to measure with any power meter!

http://pardo.net/bike/pic/mobi/d.pmp-cranks/

 

[CoachFergie]

Yes, two stupid wrong ideas (yours and theirs) don't make a right!

 

[backdoor]

Re:

Yes, two stupid wrong ideas (yours and theirs) don't make a right!

The dead spot is not the problem in natural pedalling styles, it is the idling 60 deg. sector around this spot that reduces a cyclist's pedal power from each stroke and this is caused by a cyclist's inability to apply effective tangential force in this sector, not the shape of his cranks. The perfect technique with a complete change in the use of muscles does not have this idling sector, its minimal dead spot is caused by the latent period in muscles. Mine is not just an idea, it's a perfected technique for use with standard equipment. Their objective was to hit the jackpot, mine was to discover the perfect technique.

 

[CoachFergie]

Yes, so perfect, yet you can't provide any evidence that it works despite your theory being so easy to test.

 

[PhitBoy]

Re:

Yet another nail in the coffin:
Focusing attention on circular pedaling reduces movement economy in cycling
Schücker, L., Fleddermann, M., de Lussanet, M., Elischer, J., Böhmer, C., Zentgraf, K.
Psychology of Sport and Exercise
volume 27, issue , year 2016, pp. 9 - 17
Abstract Previous research has shown that focus of attention affects movement economy in endurance tasks. This experimental study was designed to take a closer look at how focusing attention on special characteristics of endurance cycling actions can influence metabolic energy costs. Twenty-five trained cyclists completed 4 × 6 min time trials at submaximal intensity on a cycling ergometer. For each of the four time trials, they were instructed to adopt a different focus of attention: (1) circular pedaling, (2) force production of quad muscles, (3) head position, (4) stimuli in a cycling video. The order of conditions was counterbalanced. The main dependent measure was movement economy (i.e., oxygen consumption at a given workload). The results show that a focus on the circular pedaling action leads to reduced economy than a focus on the video (p = 0.001). Focusing on smooth and circular pedaling includes a continuous monitoring of the cycling action, which could disturb the rhythmical nature of movement execution, thereby leading to detriments in movement economy.

Yes, so perfect, yet you can't provide any evidence that it works despite your theory being so easy to test.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Re: Re:

Yet another nail in the coffin:
Focusing attention on circular pedaling reduces movement economy in cycling
Schücker, L., Fleddermann, M., de Lussanet, M., Elischer, J., Böhmer, C., Zentgraf, K.
Psychology of Sport and Exercise
volume 27, issue , year 2016, pp. 9 - 17
Abstract Previous research has shown that focus of attention affects movement economy in endurance tasks. This experimental study was designed to take a closer look at how focusing attention on special characteristics of endurance cycling actions can influence metabolic energy costs. Twenty-five trained cyclists completed 4 × 6 min time trials at submaximal intensity on a cycling ergometer. For each of the four time trials, they were instructed to adopt a different focus of attention: (1) circular pedaling, (2) force production of quad muscles, (3) head position, (4) stimuli in a cycling video. The order of conditions was counterbalanced. The main dependent measure was movement economy (i.e., oxygen consumption at a given workload). The results show that a focus on the circular pedaling action leads to reduced economy than a focus on the video (p = 0.001). Focusing on smooth and circular pedaling includes a continuous monitoring of the cycling action, which could disturb the rhythmical nature of movement execution, thereby leading to detriments in movement economy.

You know, at times over the years I've used a fairly glib line that goes something like:
"if you have to think about pedalling, you're probably doing it wrong".

Maybe it's not so glib.

 

[JayKosta]

Re: Re:

Yet another nail in the coffin:
Focusing attention on circular pedaling reduces movement economy in cycling
Schücker, L., Fleddermann, M., de Lussanet, M., Elischer, J., Böhmer, C., Zentgraf, K.
Psychology of Sport and Exercise
volume 27, issue , year 2016, pp. 9 - 17
Abstract Previous research has shown that focus of attention affects movement economy in endurance tasks.
...

--------------------------------------
Who-woulda-thunk it - people who aren't well trained to perform a new technique don't do it particularly well.
And especially for a new technique that requires the most attention to unfamiliar muscle usage and timing.

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

 

[PhitBoy]

Re: Re:

That would be a great counter argument if it weren't for the fact that a single leg cyclist with many years of "circular pedaling" experience became more efficient immediately when given a counterweight so that he no longer had to perform circular pedaling. Or maybe he would have become even more efficient with the counterweight with additional time.
Of course, no amount of data will suppress the arguments put forth on this thread so feel free to continue pedaling in what ever way you wish. I'll wait for you after you're dropped so you can tell me how well it worked.
Cheers,
Jim

Who-woulda-thunk it - people who aren't well trained to perform a new technique don't do it particularly well.
And especially for a new technique that requires the most attention to unfamiliar muscle usage and timing.

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

 

[JayKosta]

Re: Re:

That would be a great counter argument ...

-----------------------------------------
I'd appreciate your thoughful professional analysis of that article - or at least about the abstract that you included, (the comparison of 4 new techiques).

I don't see it as 'pounding any new nails in a coffin', I don't think their methodology was good enough to draw any conclusions about whether actual training with those techniques would be beneficial. Nor if the test subject's current technique (whatever it might have been) was actually the 'best possible' for them.

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

 

[CoachFergie]

Re: Re:

For those of us who actually do science and coach World Tour and Olympic Cyclists it is excellent advice and allows us to pursue other areas of improvement. Remember Frank Day claiming that gimmickcranks were the only proven way to enhance performance. Or that the science was good when it confirmed his bias, two very badly performed studies against several negative well performed studies. He wouldn't have lasted long in the GBR Track Team or Team Sky with that sort of attitude!

Hamish

That would be a great counter argument ...

-----------------------------------------
I'd appreciate your thoughful professional analysis of that article - or at least about the abstract that you included, (the comparison of 4 new techiques).

I don't see it as 'pounding any new nails in a coffin', I don't think their methodology was good enough to draw any conclusions about whether actual training with those techniques would be beneficial. Nor if the test subject's current technique (whatever it might have been) was actually the 'best possible' for them.

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

 

[PhitBoy]

Re: Re:

I'd appreciate your thoughful professional analysis

I doubt that very much. Unless it conformed to your world view. Circle on Jay, circle on.

 

[JayKosta]

Re: Re:

I'd appreciate your thoughful professional analysis

I doubt that very much. Unless it conformed to your world view. Circle on Jay, circle on.

---------
It more seems that you are unwilling to actually discuss an article you thought was informative.
That's OK with me, but it's very similar to the way that BACKDOOR sometimes refers us to articles that he has found.

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

 

[JayKosta]

Re: Re:

For those of us who actually do science and coach World Tour and Olympic Cyclists it is excellent advice and allows us to pursue other areas of improvement.
...

--------------
I agree that a coach needs to be able to identify and help correct weaknesses that are known to be performance limiters. And to do that in an order of development that makes sense according to the current level and ability of the athlete.

Pedalling technique certainly might be the last thing to consider, there certainly are many other areas that are of greater known value.
And a coach would be very reluctant to try changes of unproven value that could decrease performance in the short-run, with no certainty of improvement later.

But from a 'scientific' view, I find it difficult to accept the idea that whatever pedalling technique a person currently claims as his 'natural way', really is the best possible for him. Of course it might be difficult to identify 'what new technique' is better for each individual, and then there's the amount of training needed to become proficient in the technique.
And of course it might be that the 'technique' itself is not the important part, but rather the physical improvement needed to be able to perform the technique.
note: I realize that might seem like something related to the dreaded 'uncoupled cranks', but it's not meant as a suggestion or endorsement of them.

Are you aware of any new interesting analysis of the pedalling technique of top pro riders. It would be interesting to see that analysis for a non-technical individual TT using a 2nd generation (actual L/R) power meter. I know that several years ago there wasn't much info available, but perhaps some new has surfaced.

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

 

[CoachFergie]

Only if you choose to ignore the last 40 years worth of research, spearheaded by guys like Jim, that show there is nothing new under the sun. What part of a amputee rider being forced to ride in a circular motion instantly improving efficiency when riding with a counter weight is unclear to you? And for Noel which part of ANY power meter could be used to assess if your technique helps to generate more power are you still stumped by?

What I have learned from working with Pro's riding events like Tour of Flanders is that no amount of training prepares you for that. You spend years of racing to build to that level. As I mentioned earlier Jacques Anquetil success comes down to a high VO2, a high fractional utilisation of that VO2 and good efficiency that comes from racing at that level on a regular basis and is developed.

OTOH, working with a 19 year old Rio Olympic Sprinter here is someone who has made it to this level at a young age and will spend the next four years to Tokyo chasing marginal gains. In a Teams Sprint or Keirin you don't have time to think about anything, certainly not pedalling! For her the challenge will be chasing 1000s of a second each session and keeping that interesting (like the life of a swimmer).

 

[JayKosta]

Re:

Only if you choose to ignore the last 40 years worth of research, spearheaded by guys like Jim, that show there is nothing new under the sun. What part of a amputee rider being forced to ride in a circular motion instantly improving efficiency when riding with a counter weight is unclear to you?
...
OTOH, working with a 19 year old Rio Olympic Sprinter here is someone who has made it to this level at a young age and will spend the next four years to Tokyo chasing marginal gains. In a Teams Sprint or Keirin you don't have time to think about anything, certainly not pedalling! For her the challenge will be chasing 1000s of a second each session and keeping that interesting (like the life of a swimmer).

-------------------------
I acknowledge the improved efficiency of 1-leg riding with a counter weight, compared to without. I don't recall the details about it - did the cyclist's instantaneous power output through an entire crank rotation change much? I'd guess that with the CW, the cyclist did very complete 'unweighting' on the upstroke, and might have continued doing some (but much less) 'pulling up' on the pedal as was done w/o CW.

And about events where there isn't 'time to think', YES the best techniques and strategies have to be learned and perfected during training. It would be interesting to hear about what (if any) marginal gains results from any type of 'technique' changes from the cyclist's current methods. And especially interesting would be if there are any 'technique changes' that result in conjunction with improved 'physical training'.

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

 

[berend]

Re: Re:

Only if you choose to ignore the last 40 years worth of research, spearheaded by guys like Jim, that show there is nothing new under the sun. What part of a amputee rider being forced to ride in a circular motion instantly improving efficiency when riding with a counter weight is unclear to you?
...
OTOH, working with a 19 year old Rio Olympic Sprinter here is someone who has made it to this level at a young age and will spend the next four years to Tokyo chasing marginal gains. In a Teams Sprint or Keirin you don't have time to think about anything, certainly not pedalling! For her the challenge will be chasing 1000s of a second each session and keeping that interesting (like the life of a swimmer).

-------------------------
I acknowledge the improved efficiency of 1-leg riding with a counter weight, compared to without. I don't recall the details about it - did the cyclist's instantaneous power output through an entire crank rotation change much? I'd guess that with the CW, the cyclist did very complete 'unweighting' on the upstroke, and might have continued doing some (but much less) 'pulling up' on the pedal as was done w/o CW.

And about events where there isn't 'time to think', YES the best techniques and strategies have to be learned and perfected during training. It would be interesting to hear about what (if any) marginal gains results from any type of 'technique' changes from the cyclist's current methods. And especially interesting would be if there are any 'technique changes' that result in conjunction with improved 'physical training'.

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

Technique doesn't have to be learned. The subject had learned -- and, I assume, perfected -- a circular technique by necessity; and stomping was still more efficient.

 

[JayKosta]

Re: Re:

...
Technique doesn't have to be learned. The subject had learned -- and, I assume, perfected -- a circular technique by necessity; and stomping was still more efficient.

-----------------
I don't understand your ideas about 'learning technique' -
1) doesn't have to be learned
2) had learned
3) perfected

Yes it's quite possible that the original intent was to find some way to do better 1-leg pedalling, and that the circular technique was the result. Or perhaps there was some prior knowledge about circular pedalling, and achieving it was the goal.
Regardless, as you said, it was learned and perfected.

edit: The following is about the power needed to maintain a constant bike speed in constant conditions. If conditions change, or the bike speed changes, then the power applied to the chain will also change.
end edit.
About the efficiency benefits that resulted with use of a counter weight, that's completely understandable by simple mechanical principals. The mass and momentum of the CW helps keep the rotational speed of the crank more constant (which reduces the need for muscle effort to do so). And when the crank's rotational speed is more constant, the power applied to the chain is also more constant. It's the rotational speed of the cranks that determines the amount of power output - not the specific technique used to make the cranks rotate

And yes, the physical cost of using muscles to strongly 'pull up' w/o the counter weight was less efficient than when using a CW. But without good analysis of with and w/o CW, it's not known where in the crank rotation various levels of power were being created. Specifically, how much unweighting (or actual pulling-up) was done with the CW.

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA